Introduction
The debate over the authenticity and authority of the Textus Receptus (TR) is not new, yet it remains a focal point of discussion within textual criticism and evangelical circles. Mark Ward’s Which Textus Receptus? A Critique of Confessional Bibliology, published in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (2020), seeks to address perceived inconsistencies within the framework of Confessional Bibliology. His article asserts that Confessional Bibliology, though outwardly more academic and theologically grounded, shares substantive similarities with mainstream King James Version Onlyism (KJV-Onlyism). Ward’s critique questions the theological presuppositions and methodological approaches of Confessional Bibliology, focusing on three primary areas: the identification of a definitive TR, the alleged logical parallels to KJV-Onlyism, and the handling of textual variants. This article will address Ward’s critique by examining these issues in greater depth, highlighting the historical, theological, and confessional basis that undergirds Confessional Bibliology.
Theological Basis of Confessional Bibliology
Mark Ward begins by drawing a sharp distinction between what he describes as Confessional Bibliology’s “supernatural” view of textual transmission and the “naturalistic” approach of modern textual criticism. This framing is meant to contrast theological presuppositions with allegedly objective, scientific methods. However, this dichotomy misrepresents the nature of Confessional Bibliology, which rests on a foundational commitment to Reformed theology as articulated in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689.
Both confessions affirm the doctrine of providential preservation. WCF 1.8 states:
“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.”
The phrase “kept pure in all ages” is central to the Confessional Bibliology stance. It expresses confidence in God’s providential preservation of the Scriptures not in an abstract or miraculous sense, but through the historical witness and use of the church. Confessional Bibliology adheres to this principle, affirming that God has preserved His Word through the ecclesiastical text, which has been received and used by the church throughout history.
Ward’s critique of Confessional Bibliology appears to impose the standards of modern textual criticism on a theological framework grounded in Reformed orthodoxy. Confessional Bibliology does not claim that every manuscript is preserved without any variation, nor does it assert that the TR is perfect in every printed edition. Rather, it maintains that God’s providence has preserved the text in such a way that no essential doctrine is affected and that the received text—the TR—is a reliable and authoritative witness to the autographs. This approach aligns with John Owen’s assertion of the “purity of the present original copies” (Owen, Works, vol. 16, p. 353), indicating that Owen and other Reformed theologians recognized the integrity of the Scriptures available to the church despite minor textual variations.
The ‘Which TR?’ Question and Providential Preservation
Ward’s repeated emphasis on the question, “Which TR?” suggests that Confessional Bibliology lacks a definitive answer to this challenge. He argues that because there are multiple editions of the Textus Receptus—those produced by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and later by Scrivener—Confessional Bibliology must justify its preference for one edition over another. Ward posits that the existence of these different editions undercuts any claim to a singular preserved text, as no single edition can be identified as the perfect embodiment of the TR.
However, Ward’s critique rests on a misunderstanding of the Confessional Bibliology position. Confessional Bibliology is not committed to a single, perfect edition of the TR but rather affirms the general integrity of the TR tradition. Robert Truelove and Jeffrey Riddle, leading proponents of Confessional Bibliology, have consistently argued that the TR represents a family of texts that, taken collectively, preserve the inspired and authoritative Word of God. Minor differences among TR editions are acknowledged but viewed as insignificant in terms of doctrinal or theological impact. E.F. Hills, a key figure in the movement, articulates this view clearly in his distinction between miraculous preservation and providential preservation. He notes:
“God’s preservation of the New Testament text was not miraculous, but providential… Hence, there are some New Testament passages in which the true reading cannot be determined with absolute certainty… In other words, God does not reveal every truth with equal clarity… In biblical textual criticism, as in every other department of knowledge, there are still some details in regard to which we must be content to remain uncertain. But the special providence of God has kept these uncertainties down to a minimum.” (The King James Version Defended, pp. 118–119)
This acknowledgment of minor uncertainties does not contradict the doctrine of providential preservation but is instead consistent with the historical Reformed view. John Owen, for example, recognized that while there were differences among manuscripts, the essential integrity of the Scriptures was preserved. Owen affirmed that the church of God “doth now and hath for many ages enjoyed as her chiefest treasure” the Scriptures in their pure form (Works, vol. 16, p. 345).
Ward’s insistence on a single, perfect TR edition overlooks the collective nature of the TR tradition. Confessional Bibliology asserts that the church’s use of the TR texts over the centuries reflects God’s providential care in preserving His Word. This does not require uniformity in every edition but rather affirms the essential integrity of the TR family. To impose the modern textual critical framework of precision onto Confessional Bibliology is to misunderstand its theological and historical context.
Comparison to KJV-Onlyism and Handling of Variants
One of Ward’s central arguments is that Confessional Bibliology is merely an “up-market KJV-Onlyism,” drawing a direct comparison between the two positions. He suggests that both movements ultimately rely on the authority of the KJV when resolving disputes among TR variants and that both dismiss textual differences within the TR while condemning differences between the TR and modern critical texts.
This comparison, however, conflates two distinct positions. KJV-Onlyism elevates the KJV to the level of the original Greek and Hebrew texts, often claiming that the KJV itself is divinely inspired and therefore infallible. Confessional Bibliology, on the other hand, grounds its authority not in the KJV but in the received text underlying the KJV. While proponents of Confessional Bibliology affirm the KJV as a faithful and accurate translation, they do not attribute infallibility to the translation itself. Rather, they uphold the authority of the Greek and Hebrew texts that the KJV faithfully represents.
Ward’s critique of Confessional Bibliology’s handling of variants also reflects a misunderstanding of the movement’s theological framework. Confessional Bibliology recognizes minor variations within the TR family but argues that these differences do not affect the integrity of the text or any core doctrine. The differences within TR editions, such as those between Stephanus and Beza, are viewed as inconsequential in comparison to the significant doctrinal changes introduced by the modern critical texts. For example, the omission of the longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20) and the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) in critical editions presents a challenge to the doctrine of providential preservation as understood by the church.
Confessional Bibliology emphasizes that the critical texts, based on an eclectic methodology and a limited number of manuscripts, often introduce readings that were not accepted or recognized by the church throughout history. The TR, by contrast, reflects the text used and affirmed by the church over centuries. The movement’s critique of critical texts is not based merely on the number of variants but on the theological implications of adopting a methodology that challenges the historical integrity of the text received by the church.
Conclusion
Mark Ward’s Which Textus Receptus? attempts to discredit Confessional Bibliology by imposing modern critical standards onto a framework grounded in historical Reformed theology. His insistence on identifying a singular, perfect TR fails to engage with the collective nature of the TR tradition and the theological doctrine of providential preservation. Furthermore, his comparison of Confessional Bibliology to KJV-Onlyism overlooks the substantive differences between the two positions in their understanding of textual authority and translation.
Confessional Bibliology maintains that the text of Scripture has been preserved by God’s providence through the historical witness of the church. This preservation does not require a single, error-free edition but rather affirms the integrity of the text as preserved in the received text tradition. By grounding its position in the Reformed confessions and the historical practices of the church, Confessional Bibliology offers a robust and theologically coherent response to the challenges posed by modern textual criticism.
Ward’s critique, while thoughtful in its examination of textual variants, ultimately falls short in its understanding of the confessional and theological commitments that underlie Confessional Bibliology. The movement’s emphasis on providential preservation and the received text tradition is not an appeal to academic superiority but a faithful adherence to the historic doctrines of the Reformed faith. Rather than dismissing Confessional Bibliology as a mere variant of KJV-Onlyism, it is essential to engage with its theological foundations and historical context to appreciate its commitment to the integrity and authority of God’s Word.
Bibliography
Hills, E.F. The King James Version Defended. Des Moines, IA: Christian Research Press, 1956.
Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Edited by William H. Goold. 16 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1850–1853.
Ward, Mark. Which Textus Receptus? A Critique of Confessional Bibliology. Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 25 (2020): 51–77.
Westminster Confession of Faith. The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms: As Adopted by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Philadelphia: Committee on Christian Education, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2007.
